Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> why should any tax breaks be considered in the future for any company

Unemployment in the USA after the tax cuts is at historically low levels that haven’t been seen in more than four decades. The economy is booming.

Taxes on corporations are mainly good to encourage corporate behavior, revenue can be obtained by taxing the wealthy directly as well. Increasing taxes such as the capital gains tax while keeping corporate taxes at their reformed, globally competitive levels seems the way to go to me...

Unemployment is at low levels globally, not just USA. I would say it's some sort of global trend not because of tax cuts in the USA.


> economists attribute to changes including more flexible working practices, lower wages and rock-bottom interest rates.

That’s a false statistic. The employment rate is 4% below what it was in 2000 and has barely recovered from the recession. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate

Unemployment rate is useful in the short term, but it’s not comparable across longer time periods as they kick people off the lists very quickly.

Employment rate is a false statistic if anything. The population is aging since childbirth rates have gone way down over the last few decades. A larger percent of adults are retired now and are included in that employment rate statistic.

If you just want to include people “kicked” off the lists, U-6 may be what you’re looking for. https://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/

It’s as low as it’s been in almost two decades. Not quite as record breaking as the U-3 but still pretty good...

Looking at those charts, I don't see any place where the tax cut kicked in. Looks like the trend just continues from before the tax cut. Looks like your mention of the tax cut is completely unrelated to unemployment figures.

Some economists believe the tax cut and other spending has been juicing the economy, leading to the record numbers we are seeing right now.

I recently listened to a NYT podcast where they discussed this theory briefly, but I’ve also been seeing it from some economists I follow on Twitter. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-argument/id1438024...

Of course as with any economics prediction it’s hard to prove what the alternate history would have been, but the idea is that the economy would have slowed down and U-3 unemployment wouldn’t have dropped to historic lows without the additional cash injection thanks to recent economic policies.

Edit: in general I think jobs numbers are very relevant to this whole thread since the article is attempting to sell the premise that the tax cuts didn’t help job growth (by using the specific example of AT&T jobs - even though this tax cut was for every company not just AT&T) despite the overall economy doing well, jobs increasing, and unemployment decreasing.

Is that how you get on U-6... how do they count those who've never been employed? E.G. recent grads from schooling?

I think the millions of barely paid, two or three jobs at the same time, people would like to have a talk with you.

If the economy is doing so well why haven't non-tech wages been increasing at a faster rate?


> Worker paychecks are showing their biggest gains since the recovery began a decade ago, and are more than keeping up with inflation.

Not sure why tech wages are excluded from your comment. Tech jobs are jobs too...

> Worker paychecks are showing their biggest gains since the recovery began a decade ago

Ok, but they didn't really grow at all for a decade.

Total comp went up[0], most of the additional funds went to insurance.


Wages and Salaries 5% over 14 years. 0.35% per year.

Total compensation 9% over 14 years. 0.64% per year.

I guess technically I'm wrong.

With 1 in 8 Americans living underneath the federal poverty line, and 10% of employed American adults facing food insecurity (i.e. hunger), it's arguably not the case that the economy is booming.

As for what you can credit the tax cuts with, well, here you go:


The tl;dr: share buybacks and corporate profits are the biggest consequence of the TCJA, not employment.

I don’t see what those two statistics have to do with whether the economy is booming.

Would you argue the economy has never boomed before? 1 in 8 Americans below the federal poverty line seems to be pretty decent when seen historically according to https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Number_in_Poverty_...

Numbers for 2018 don’t seem to be available yet but I’d assume they continue to trend down.

Another view is that the US is as bad as ever compared to peers: https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-...

Mexico has lower rates of poverty than the US? It wants me to pay to see how they gather the data but 33% of Mexicans live on less than $5 a day[0] while "42% of Mexico's total population living below the national poverty line" yet the rate in your graph is 16.7%

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Mexico

It's true that the oecd definition kind of breaks on poor countries with low median income. But still the list is interesting if you look at the more comparable rich countries vs the US.

It's mindboggling that we can have such incredible poverty and food insecurity problems, while having catastrophic obesity rates, and have huge overlaps in the populations supposedly suffering both problems simultaneously.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact